jump to navigation

Austrian Surveillance Techno – 14th May 2011 July 6, 2011

Posted by admin in : news, tools , 1 comment so far

Deptford.TV was exhibited at the LiWoLi festival, under the motto Art meets Radical Openness:

Observing, comparing, reflecting, imitating, testing, combining

12th – 14th of May 2011
LiWoLi (1) is an open lab and meeting spot for artists, developers and educators using and creating FLOSS (free/libre open source software) and Open Hardware in the artistic and cultural context. LiWoLi is all about sharing skills, code and knowledge within the public domain and discussing the challenges of open practice.

This year’s event offers an exhibition, artists’ workshops and – like every year – lectures, presentations and sound-performances.

Deptford.TV’s part of the exhibition tried attempt to identify and document secret (covert) places, strategies and messages in our everyday surroundings. We will use overt, co-operative tactics and practice openness and transparency to push the covert into clearer view. The participants of the Deptford.TV workshop produced a one minute ‘Austrian Surveillance Techno’ video which was then transmitted over the local TV station DorfTV.

A series of ludic interventions in downtown Linz. The narrative is focused on generating awareness on invasive surveillance technologies. Utilising cool and awesome ring-tones sounds!

“Politics, like theater, is one of those things where you’ve got to be wise enough to know when to leave.” Richard Lamm

“A real artist never sleeps in front of new technologies but deforms them and transforms them [...]” Paul Virilio

The workshop  introduced participants to Surveillance and CCTV filmmaking where material and images from the Deptford.TV archive were edited to submissions from the Deptford.TV database. Footage taken from Deptford.TV was filmed during a previous TV hacking workshop where participants equipped with CCTV surveillance signal receivers were lead through the city by incoming surveillance camera signals. CCTV video signal receivers cached surveillance camera signals into public and private spaces and were made visible: surveillance became sousveillance. By making images visible which normally remain hidden, we gain access to the “surveillance from above” enabling us to use these images to create personal narratives of the city. The workshop looked at constructing a possible narrative.
Finally we did a ‘live’ hack and connected Ali’s Kebab shop ‘live’ to DorfTV under the title CC Reality TV.

  1. 11 Moments, EXCHANGE RADICAL MOMENTS! (Linz: Die Fabrikanten, 2011), http://exchangeradicalmoments.wordpress.com/magazine/

Hacking Suomenlinna July 6, 2011

Posted by admin in : news, research, tools , add a comment

For the Pixelache Festival Deptford.TV offers now also the video editing software KdenLive. The Pixelache Wiki.

Deptford TV

Deptford TV: C/Overt operations with CCTV sniffing and collaborative open source video editing

Main workshop day: Thursday 10 March 2011, 11:30-17:30
Venue: Pajasali, Suomenlinna Island (+ Helsinki centre)

This workshop will attempt to identify and document secret (covert) places, strategies and messages in our everyday surroundings. We will use overt, co-operative tactics and practice openness and transparency to push the covert into clearer view.

Our main tool for this workshop will be easily to obtained, simple to use and perfectly legal video receivers that can intercept the data collected by small CCTV video cameras often placed covertly in shops, offices and other public/private spaces. But we will also use ordinary media-gathering devices, our own eyes and ears and our social skills to identify and record evidence of covert operations in our midst, whether this is capturing gossip and rumour about the Suomenlinna’s Island fortress or observing city planners’ attempts to ‘design out’ specific social behaviours.

The materials gathered on our main workshop day (Thursday) will be meta-data tagged and added to the Deptford TV collaborative video editing platform. During the course of Pixelache this platform will be used together with the open source video editing package kdenlive to create a series of ‘versioned’ edits of this material. We will also be inviting remote participants to contribute additional raw media and participate in editing.

On Thursday, 10 March, we are inviting participants to join a walk through Helsinki/Suomenlinna with our CCTV ‘sniffing’ equipment and senses sharpened.  No specific route is currently planned. We will determine this following a short introductory meeting on the day and shape the day according to people’s specific interests.

On Friday 11 March we plan to transcode and ‘tag’ the material ready for editing, and on Saturday/Sunday, editing will take place. We hope that at least some participants will be able to see the whole process through. The post-production will take a wholly open source/free software pathway, so this should be of interest to all those media practitioners interested in open source tools. for media production. As well as a couple of pre-set up computers, we will supply ‘live’ cd’s or usb sticks with with linux distribution Puredyne, and our main toolset will be:

FFMPEG
Easytag for metadata tagging
KDEnlive for video editing
The Drupal-based custom web platform for sharing edits developed by
Deptford TV: http://edit.deptford.tv

There will be chances to learn about and use all of these quite intensively across the entire time of the festival.

Please sign up for the Thursday workshop, but also let us know your specific skills, interests and all the times you are available to work with us during Pixelache.

The Deptford TV workshop is hosted by Adnan Hadzi, Lisa Haskel and Larisa Blazic.

Deptford.TV running Active Archives September 20, 2010

Posted by admin in : research, tools , add a comment

During the active archives code sprint in June 2010 Deptford.TV got the active archives system installed, see pictures. Soon we will be running an active archives workshop in London.

Manifesto for an Active Archive

From ActiveArchives

This Manifesto is a work in progress. The text introduces the ideas and motivations behind the Active Archive project lead by Constant in collaboration with Arteleku, and was initiated in 2006. This project aims at creating a free software platform to connect practices of library, media library, publications on paper (as magazines, books, catalogues), productions of audio-visual objects, events, workshops, discursive productions, etc. Practices which can take place on line or in various geographical places, and which can be at various stages of visibility for reasons of rights of access or for reasons of research and privacy conditions. The development will take place during 2008-2009 and regular workshops will be organised to stimulate dialog between future users, developers and cultural workers and researchers.

Image:Event-manager-5.jpg

Creating web pages and displaying information on-line has become easier and easier for non-expert users. The Active Archives project starts from the observation that most of the interesting cultural archives that have been developed over the last few years have taken advantage of those new facilities for instant publishing, but mostly in the form of websites that mirror regular information brochures, announcements and text-publishing. Often, they are conceived as “We” give information to “You”. Within Active Archives, we aim to set up multi-directional communication channels, and are interested in making information circulate back and forth. We would like to give material away and receive it transformed: enriched by different connections, contexts and contradictions.

Decentralizing the archive

When we want to share with other cultural associations and groups/institutions, the challenge is as follows: how do “We” share information “Together”, how do we channel information through each others’ network, under which conditions? How do we produce digital content together? To develop common infrastructures, we will need to discuss what kind of licensing we prefer, and work on norms and a common agreement on formats. We also need to find a shared understanding of classifications or maybe first question existing ones.

Digital cultural archives today fall into two categories: fragmented archives and over-centralized archives. Fragmented archives look like isolated islands. Every institution sits on top of its treasure and tries to regulate and control the way it is used with at most offering a timid RSS feed. Centralized archives gather collections and resources from different origins but disconnect the material from its original context. Accessibility and searchability come at the cost of legitimisation.

An active archive is a decentralized archive which is not only open for reading but also for re-appropriation, comment, divergences, transformations. This manifesto is a plea for such a decentralized archive: an archive constituted from many sites and voices that keep their own contexts without fear of sharing, mirroring, connecting and using common protocols.

Owning our infrastructure

If public television channels decide to publish their archives on YouTube, libraries work in partnership with Google etc., why does the Active Archive not make use of the existing web 2.0 infrastructure? Flickr + MySpace + FaceBook with a bit of Delicious to glue it all together… who needs more? But to upload digital culture on the servers of dotcom billionaires might not be such a good idea after all.

However much influence the functionalities of Web 2.0 had in popularising the digital archive, we need to be aware of their terms of use. We would like to prevent that cultural archives serve as footage for ad-placement or as honey pot for market profilers and for this reason we need to make the effort to build our own infrastructure.

An active archive should provide to its contributors a clean and clear contract where the terms of the participation are fair and legible for everyone. The goal of an active archive is to produce more interesting content in the first place. Not to make profit in monitoring the users and selling their behavioural patterns. Only when the different parties involved own their own infrastructure and accept to share it, they can ensure the conditions for access without strings attached. This means open content licenses for all material stored, so that the conditions for use are clear for everyone. An infrastructure built with free software so that everybody can co-own the source code.

Distributing more than text

An active archive needs to go beyond mere text-publishing. Artists, cultural groups and institutions regularly produce video and audio images for various communication or creative purposes. It is necessary to take into account that media content requires different material configurations: they need more disk space and more bandwidth, therefore they require clever strategies of distribution. Peer-to-peer networks have pioneered large scale experiments with the distribution of audiovisual media, and it is time to learn from them.

Integrating audiovisual media is not just adding another type of file. It requires a new approach to navigation, searching, linking, subtitling and translation so that audio and video content can connect to text-based content because otherwise those files remain black holes in the archives.

Image:exchange-of-tools.jpg

Promoting re-use

The material that is made available through the Active Archive is thought of as source material for other works. This means, systems need to be put in to place to make referencing and re-use of the material easy, but also make sure that versions of the material can filter back to the place it original came from. These systems are partially technical, and partially cultural: a series of commissions, workshops, exhibitions and publications will inspire creative use.

Between tags and ontologies

To improve the search facilities, to group elements, to link them and to create new meaning and new experiences, an archive needs a system of classification. Librarians and archivists are used to work with fixed standards but the work produced and discussed within contemporary culture tends to escape these classification schemes.

An Active Archive requires the creation and discussion of vocabularies and taxonomies that can evolve, diverge or merge. These vocabularies and taxonomies should neither be brutally top-down or completely flat. The system should stimulate the sharing of common classifications, allow for divergence and promote the convergence of knowledge trees. Active Archive needs a classification system with a difference.

Moving through new gestures

Sharing is the principal motivation to create an Active Archive. This means that we need to update our assumptions about the users of such an archive, the sources that are used and the circulation of its content. An Active Archive is not a black box with a Download button, it is information reconfigured. And it has to start now.

Image:researcher.jpg Image:radiomaker.jpg Image:librarian.jpg

Cinelerra Server for FLOSS Manuals September 20, 2010

Posted by admin in : research, tools , add a comment

The plan is to integrate the Cinelerra Server project into the Cinelerra FLOSSMANUAL, see http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Cinelerra/WebHome

What is FLOSS Manuals?

FLOSS Manuals is a collection of manuals about free and open source software together with the tools used to create them and the community that uses those tools. They include authors, editors, artists, software developers, activists, and many others. There are manuals that explain how to install and use a range of free and open source softwares, about how to do things (like design) with open source software, and manuals about free culture services that use or support free software and formats. Anyone can contribute to a manual – to fix a spelling mistake, to add a more detailed explanation, to write a new chapter, or to start a whole new manual on a topic. You can read and use the manuals in a number of different ways. They are available online in separately indexed chapters, and you can use the website as a reference base in this way. You can also view, download, or print each manual as a PDF file. It is also possible to ‘remix’ manuals to create a version that only includes specific aspects of a particular manual, or that combines chapters from two or more manuals in a single document. These can be downloaded and printed, added to websites, and used for any purpose. You can also print a manual, or an individually ‘remixed’ manual, as a book via the print-to-order service of Lulu.com.

What does FLOSS stand for?

F. L. O. S. S. stands for Free Libre Open Source Software. Basically, this means software that makes its code available for anyone to use, change, and redistribute under the same terms. If you’re still confused, you can read more below.

What is Open Source? What is the difference between Free and Open?

Open Source emphasizes availability of source code to software users. This means not only that the source code is available at no cost and with little difficulty, but that users can modify the source code and distribute the results under the same conditions. Bruce Perens wrote the original Open Source definition for Debian. Free Software emphasizes the freedom to modify and reuse software, which of course also requires that source code be readily available. Richard M. Stallman initiated the definition of Free Software as part of the creation of the Free Software Foundation and its GNU project (GNU’s Not Unix) to create a completely Free Unix-compatible operating system and set of software tools. GNU software together with the Linux kernel, plus contributions from many other sources, constitute the GNU/Linux Operating System, commonly known as Linux. So in practice the differences in meaning between the two phrases are not great, but they lead to some differences in attitude, terminology, and use of specific license terms. One reason for the difference in terminology is that “Free” is ambiguous in English. FSF has to explain that it means, “Free as in Free Speech, not as in Free Beer.” To counter this, the unambiguous French term “Libre” can be added in, resulting in FLOSS, or Free (Libre) Open Source Software. FSF maintains a page explaining the various Free and Non-FREE licenses. The BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) license, for example, allows users to modify source code and put the changes under a restrictive commercial copyright, as Apple has done in Mac OS/X. Since most BSD users put their changes under BSD, it can be considered somewhat, but not entirely, Free. In addition to these software licenses, there are several licenses for documentation and other content, most notably the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) and the various Creative Commons licenses. FLOSS Manuals uses the Free Software GPL for all of its work. For details of definitions and available licenses, see

A Little About the History..

Adam Hyde started FLOSS Manuals while a digital artist. Adam had made a living running workshops on free software all over the world and had accumulated a lot of support material in the form of workshop manuals. In 2005 this material was put into a wiki with the help of Aleksandar Erkalovic and Lotte Meijer did the design. In 2006 Lotte Meijer and Adam Hyde applied for and recieved funding from Digital Pioneers to extend FLOSS Manuals. Thus the development and design of FLOSS Manuals as it is now started in 2006. This is the same year the Foundation was registered. Several digital artists were commissioned to write manuals on Audacity, Gimp, Blender, and PureData. The actual site wasn’t ready until May 2007. The first unsolicited edit on the site was in July 2007. FLOSS Manuals was officially launched at a party at Montevideo Time Based Arts (Amsterdam) in October 2007. In 2008 we created the Farsi version of FLOSS Manuals (http://fa.flossmanuals.net) and started our first Book Sprints. Now there are over 40 manuals on free software, and 1200 registered contributors and a healthy and active mailing list. Burmese, French, Finnish and Spanish language communities are currently being established.

What’s the benefit to me of using FLOSS and FLOSS Manuals?

By using free/libre/open-source software, you have the right to use, change  and share the software freely. FLOSS is also usually no-cost. You are not dependent on a big company to add features or fix problems; for FLOSS, these issues are handled by a community of software developers, which often responds more quickly. If the FLOSS community doesn’t address a problem that have with the software, you can hire a programmer to do it for you; this is almost never possible with proprietary software. Similarly, when you use free/libre/open-source manuals, you have the right to use, modify and share the documentation freely. Manuals on the FLOSS Manuals site are no-cost to use online. For paper copies, we charge just for the paper and printing, and a little extra to support making more books. You can also take the online version as a PDF file and print it yourself. You can also edit the documents on the site, for example, if you find things are incorrect, out of date, or incomplete. (You can also change your own copy, but we appreciate if you help us make the manuals on the site better.)

Symphony of Deptford – Sample I – Glitch Frames September 20, 2010

Posted by admin in : research, tools , add a comment

work in progress – this clip shows some algorithmically montaged frames trawled from the deptford.tv database – scripted using python and the aml video library. This material is protomaterial for the eventual construction which will take the form of a video installation and short montage film.


Symphony of Deptford [vimeo http://vimeo.com/11022343]

the code can be found here: https://code.goto10.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/rob/symphonyofdeptford/

Symphony of Deptford (work commenced) September 20, 2010

Posted by admin in : research, tools , add a comment

Rob Canning wrote: Started work on the audio side of Symphony of Deptford a collaboration with Adnan Hadzi of deptford.tv. I will be using the deptford.tv database (http://watch.deptford.tv/) as a source of audio material and using the meta information that is attached to these files to impose a structure on to a generative sound installation. At the moment it is early days but there is a basic stream being generated on the server now and being broadcast here: http://rob.goto10.org/symphonyofdeptford.ogg http://grub.spc.org:8008/symphonyofdeptford.ogg Deptford Symphony of a city is a  homage to Walter Ruthman “Berlin: Symphony of a great City” and Adnan Hadzi’s professorThomas Schadt who produced the remake “Berlin Symphony of a City” from http://www.filmakademie.de

transmission documentation workshop, 22nd may 2007 September 22, 2007

Posted by deptfordtv in : research, tools , add a comment

Deptford.TV organised the transmission.cc documentation workshop looking at how to create manuals for FLOSS. See the wiki for further infos & outcomes.

London Docs Gathering

A few of the crew from the Transmission documentation working group are going to be meeting up in London in a couple of weeks to talk online video distribution documentation.

The aim to create a common repository for housing and collaborating on documentation to avoid re-inventing the wheel and to create a better resource.

The dates are May 22/23. More info can be found here

http://wiki.transmission.cc/index.php/Documentation_working_group

and’s blog | login or register to post comments

nice meeting

Submitted by zoe on Sat, 2007-06-02 13:59.

and a very nice meeting it was too, productive with friendly people, nice views and very tasty munchies, thanks adnan! best thing about it from my perspective was the decision to create ‘ways in’ to floss documentation for users with specific needs and tasks to achieve. we used a free mind plugin (what a lovely name) to map the routes that people with a video to put online might find they want to take to their goal. By asking basic questions at every level, I suspect that people will be better able to identify and locate the free software they need, not just be presented with a smart looking guide to using some inexplicably named ffmpegahedron software to achieve some obscure sounding task relating to codecs and other stuff they’ve never heard of…. so hurray for a new, user friendly way forward for online video floss documentation : ))

DocAgora & Dyne:Bolic stable December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news, tools , add a comment

Amsterdam, 1st, December, 2006, Jaromil presented a script with with the GRUB loader can be automatically installed on a memory stick. Dyne:Bolic 2 is out in a stable version, working from a memory stick, making us ready to test Cinelerra from virtually any PC with broadband connection!

 

During the same week the DocAgora conference took place in Amsterdam. A follow up conference will take place on http://www.d-word.com in the week of the 19th of February 2007.

DOCAGORA NOTES 30/11/2006

General Intro by moderator Peter Broderick:
People talk about the coming transformation of documentary filmmaking
and distribution under the influence of new web-based media. I say the
transformation is already upon us. Yochai Benkler (sp?) writes in the
?Weatlh of Networks? that there is a shift in economic systems from
hierarchies to networks, and this has far-reaching repercussions for
doc film distribution. First in the late ?90s there was the changes
engendered by digital film production, now we see changes as a result
of digital distribution.

It leads first to reconceptualising the idea of the Audience:
filmmakers who have been successful in digital distribution have
usually found a loyal niche target audience first, and only reached a
wider audience later. Filmmakers should now think about a distribution
strategy from day one of the project.

Working relationships with the distributors will take a more hibrid
character. Filmmakers will work more as partners rather than
supplicants and will allways keep a slice of the rights. In case of
political and social documentaries filmmakers can do public
screenings, networking events. This way filmmakers turn consumers into
potential patrons and mentors and I believe that filmmakers will have
greater control then ever before. The challenges for distributors and
funding bodies are going to be greater, especially for distributors
who will loose their role as gate keepers to the audience and will
have to work more as partners and mediators. Funding bodies are also
have to be more flexible to allow hibrid funding models.

Panel One

Introduction of moderator frank boyd who is ex BBC and is a producer
with unexpected media. Frank boyd shows a graph of two waves of
technological innovation, the first wave in which digital and analogue
technologies co-exist and digital technology is used to enhance
anaogue content. Many big media companies have been successful in
using this technologies. But in the second interface in which both the
media and the interface are digital entirely new plattforms are being
created.

Some statistics:
25% was the audience share of bbc 1 in july 2006, this was at the time
of the world cup and I believe this will be the last time one
broadcaster will have such a share.
62% of media consumed by people under 26 is made by people they know
personally.
0.03% of content on tech blogs is sourced from mainstream media

so what are established media doing in this situation? According to
Roger Graef, TV is retreating, increasingly playing it safe. What
about VPRO?

Stan van Engelen (VPRO): the space and resources for docs are on the
way down in public TV. VPRO started ?Holland Doc? two years ago to
find other audiences for films. It started as a digital TV channel and
still runs as a linear channel on the web.

FB: how is Fourdocs different from YouTube?
Emily Renshaw-Smith (FourDocs, UK): Channel4 recognized that as a
public broadcaster we?d have to recognize there?s new platforms and
that we have to engage with them. Fourdocs is a curated space, unlike
YouTube ? anyone can upload films but they are rated by us and by the
viewers, and we insist on legal compliance, which only helps the
filmmakers in the long run.
We get about 30 new films per month and 60% of our audience is outside
the UK.
We don?t pay for films, but neither do we claim rights; the filmmakers
can always sell the films on.
For Channel 4 it is a way for talentspotting new directors ? in two
cases it has lead to commissions on the main channel, but we?ve done
some research and the majority of our contributors are hobbyists who
are not interested in using it for career development.
FB: does it provide opportunities for professional filmmakers?
Filmmakers have used it to upload trailers to look for further
financing.

Huub Roelvink ? CinemaNet
We are now busy with a new project which is called Cinema
Delicatessen, which is a follow-up of DocuZone. CinemaNet helps to
create technical access to digital cinema by helping cinemas to
acquire digital cinema equipment and then screen digitally ditributed
content. Our threshold, like in any cinema distribution, is quite
high, so I guess I am a kind of a gatekeeper.

FB: so far the models have been ?updates? of existing distribution
models ? what about other ways of using digital distribution
altogether?
Gillan Caldwell ? director of ?Witness?:
Witness has always used AV media to create political change, and to
expose human rights abuses. We use the term ?video advocacy? and do
not produce for broadcast, although some productions have made it to
broadcast. One important aspect of our work is to create targeted
screenings for decision makers, and in many cases we have seen a
direct effect in the form of a policy change soon after such a
screening.
We are now working on the next level of using digital distribution by
making a human rights video hub, where activists can post and exchange
audiovisual material, even raw footage. It will come with downloadable
?tactical media toolkits? to help activists in production.
Witness also uses YouTube and similar sites to further distribute some
of our titles, and oru recent report on torture by CIA trained
mercenaries is the most downloaded long-form video on YouTube.

Katherine Cizek ? indie filmmaker
I?ve been hugely inspired by the work of Witness: documentary has
always been hitched to the TV wagon, but now we are in a position to
experiment with new forms. This means that the filmmaker?s
realtionship with the audience changes, but also the relationship with
the subject changes: I am a filmmaker-in-residence at an inner city
hospital in Toronto, sponsored by the Canadian Film Board: and rather
than produce a long form doc, I?m working with the community to create
media content for a form of interactive online documentary (demo: this
is full screen in Flash!). So people ask if it can still be called
documentary, but I think documentary is about giving voice to unheard
viewpoints, in whatever form, so that?s exactly what I?m doing and I
call it documentary.

FB: so we come to the question: what makes docs possible? When it is
supported by public funding there is always the connection to idea of
public service. My question to Google is inspired by a quote from Tim
Berners-Lee, who said he was concerned by the ease with which lies are
propagated in unmoderated space. Does this concern Google?

Sydney Mock ? Google Benelux: Google has always said it is not a
content company, it is a technology company, so on the internet  it is
like in the real world: you have to check your sources, and ultimately
it?s about trust in the source.
One successful example of the use of Google video is Fabchannel.com:
musicians connected to Paradiso webcasting their gigs here to the
world ? they put trailers up on Google Video to promote the webcasts.

FB: how about revenue ? could filmmakers get revenue via Google?
SM: there?s different models how that could be done: one is Adsense,
in which publishers can run Google ads on their own websites and share
revenue.

FB: well I was recently in a conference on interactive TV in the UK
and the consensus was that we?re still in the R+D phase.

Cay Wesnigk (from the audience): the rollback of the revolution is
already underway: the internet haas created new monopolies ? and how
many places will you be able to upload video in a few years? time? Who
will own the portals?

Heather Croall (from the audience): distributors are now looking at
making their own ?curated channels? on their own websites.

Sydney Mock: I don?t agree with the idea of the lock-in effect Cay is
referring to: you don?t have to log in on Google Video, it?s free to
use it or not and in the end it?s about trust in the brand that the
user chooses.

Huub Roelvink ? CinemaNet
CinemaNet can be used directly by filmmakers, so it could serve as an
alternative.

Adnan Hadzi (from the audence); I just want to mention that there is
an initiative called ?Google eats itself?, which involves setting up
google ads and clicking on them and using the revenue to buy Google
shares ? eventually the whole company could belong to the users.

Q from the audience to FourDocs: what is the benefit of Forudocs to
the filmmakers other than exposure? For instance a not unsimilar
initiative from the Knitting Factory in NYC became a fiasco because
the musicians felt they were strong-armed into participating and felt
they weren?t paid for having their material up on the web.

Emily Renshaw-Smith (FourDocs, UK): we?re not claiming rights on the
material, we see it as a way for filmmakers to develop their career.
But we?re also looking at a couple of shared revenue models that might
work for us, like Revver or the way 3 mobile shares with users hwo
upload mobile content.

FB: another place to look at is BBC Innovation labs. I also want to
mention how new consumers expect you to come to them: broadcasters are
no longer the centre, but the individual consumer is.

Witness: we also are interested in giving the users access to content
whenever and wherever.

FB: I think the Submarine online TV channel is an interesting attempt
to create a kind of online broadcasting company. But what do people
actually watch? How do you get them to watch something they don?t know
about already in advance ? soemthing they don?t know they want to see?

Mercury Media (from the audience): we made a film called Loose Change
and we tried to sell it to broadcasters, but were rejected. Then we
put it up on YouTube and become the most downloaded film ever and now
we have sold it to two broadcasters ? after it proved it had an
audience.
{The_D-Word.Community.11.792}: Lennaart Van Oldenborgh {lenn} Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:27:49 EST (221 lines)

hello here’s the other half of the notes all nicely typed even if at
times they don’t really make sense to me either… enjoy

PANEL 2 DOCAGORA, IDFA 30 NOV 2006

Is moderated by Peter Broderick, focuses more on financing and revenue
models. PB asks all participants to introduce themselves in under 2
minutes.

Marc Goodchild ? BBC Interactive:
I work for the BBC but have been an indie producer and what I do may
be relevant to indie producers in two ways: 1) in their realtoin to
the BBC, and 2) as content owners in their own right.
What I do at the BBC is to think about opening up and reusing the
substantial BBC archives in interactive applications. Rather than just
make old programs available, I?m trying to structure the content
differently in an interactive environment. Here?s an example form our
parenting interactive site: all the content is parcelled up into small
chanks and given extensive metadata, so if you click through
?personality? and ?age group 6-12 months? you get an auto-created
assembly of material relevant to that topic, from different sources.
It is a way of seeing the archive not just as films but as content.

Gerry Flahive ? Canadian Film Board:
Apart from the usual film projects, we also fund younger web-based
filmmakers, and projects such as Katerina Cizek?s. For examples see
citizenshift.org.ca

Klara Grunning-Harris ? ITVS
Sums up the ITVS mission

Maria Silvia Gatta ? MEDIA distribution EU
Sums up MEDIA mission and newly approved MEDIA 2007 program
Among others MEDIA supports ?RealPort? online distribution and Midas
network of film archives.

Patrick Crowe of Xinephile Media, Canada
Is indie producer in Toronto, working with doc in linear and non-
linear form, engaged with broadcasting model but also interactive
programming. Example: Beethoven?s Hair: the online part is nota
?companion? site to the film but a serious part of the production
itself.

Stefano Portu ? Buongiorno! Italy
Gives intro on mobile video market ? 3G, or UMTS, is most mature in UK
and Italy (in Europe). Buongiorno! Provides ?snackable video? for the
?interstitial spaces in our busy schedules?, mainly sports,
celebrities and news.

James Fabricant ? head of myspace UK+Ireland
Describes Myspace as the new portal based on a social network

Robert Greenwald gives a prerecorded statement on the financing of
?Iraq for Sale?:
Three months before production the money still wasn?t there, they
decide to put out an open call on the internet and a ?thermometer?
with the target budget on the website and within three months they
raise around 350k dollars from the public.

PB: can we hear more about the issues that MEDIA is concerned about
when funding digital distribution?

MSG: main issues are:
- how to secure content? MEDIA exists to stimulate an industry so it
is in the interest of MEDIA that the actors in this industry can
survive. Hence digital rights management is a core issue
- differences in the rules between regions in the way they set up
local funding get in the way of a system that can transcend these
boudaries
- also: since the web is a global system does it still make sense to
stimulate specifically European content?

JF: MySpace is used for viral marketing of films, we call it ?mass
roots marketing? ? example is the ?lovemap? distribution model of the
Four Eyed Monsters site.

KGH ? ITVS:
We support an online film festival: the winners are broadcast on
?independent lens? slot

MG ? BBC: what digital distribution does is create communities of
interest: if we want to speak to these communities we have to be more
like hosts and less like auteurs. Example: joiningthedots.tv
Also: cycling TV is effectively a digital TV channel run on 60k with
very specific content and a very specific audience which allows
smaller companies to advertise in a very targeted way. So we can think
about financing in terms of ?symbiotic revenue splits?.

SP ? Buongiorno:
In the beginning mobile content was spun off from mainstream content
but this was not very succesful. So now we have two other forms:
1. interactive content: you have to get people to do something every
few minutes otherwise people feel stupid string at such a small screen
2. user generated content: for example we get football fans to submit
little clips from the football grounds about the match or to do a song
or a stupid joke.

Q from audience: what about mixed funding?
GF: well in canada the networks have no online strategy at all ?
they?ll try anyting for a while so there?s opportunities for
filmmakers.

Adnan hadzi: two comments:
- only some forms of distribution are measured, for instance peer2peer
filesharing is not measured so download figures don?t necessarily
represent how many people see something
- question for the BBC: what about rights, for instance in the case of
the BBC Creative Archives?

MG:
Well I don?t speak for the creative archives that?s another dept., but
in general I think we should think more in terms of ?windowing? of
rights for the broadcaster, and that after each such window rights
revert to the content maker

Q from audience:
What about royalties?

PB: like I said before, never sign away all digital download rights

PANEL 3

Moderator: Peter Wintonick
Begins a rant on gadgets, quotes Octavio Paz on technology and quotes
Philip K Dick?s definition of reality: ?that which if you stop
believing in it doesn?t go away?

But first Heather Croall?s report on Panel2:
- canadian film board and ITVS are traditional funders continuing with
their existing parctice which is to stimulate underrepresented voices
- there IS money for cross-platform funding but only if you live in
canada or australia: in these places TV and ?new media? funding can
trigger eachother, multiplying the cash
- what the BBC does is more about ?re-purposing? content
- a new EU commission policy paper on digital rights management has
recently been published and can be found via MEDIA website

so now panel 3 for real which is called a ?brainstorm?

first: Pat Aufderheide ? centre for social media, school of journalism
what can we teach our students about tomorrow?s world?
Example: rights issues ? we published ?best practice in fair use?,
because copyright is about liberating tomorrow?s creators ? our slogan
?you don?t have to pirate stuff in order to quote it?
Broadcasting hasn?t changed all that much ? you get the same kind of
negotiations that you had 20 years ago. But now we have in addition to
that new enterprises that provide new paradigms: according to these
- you don?t have audiences but you have partners, networks, contacts
- rather than a film director you become a ?strategic designer of a
project? in which film is only part of the project. This is also not
entirely new: most filmmakers in IDFA also think of themselves as
social actors
Both models live side by side at the moment, and I predict that new
mediators will arise between the two: not every filmmaker wants to be
a strategic designer of a project.
I would also want to raise the question: what will public media look
like?

PW: waxes lyrical about Aljazeera
Flora Gregory ? Aljazeera London, ex-indie producer
Aljazeera English is a new channel, started just a few weeks ago.
It?s based on an odd funding model: it?s paid for by the Qatari
government, so it?s public service and has no advertising, but it?s
very divers, with a very international labour force, and it wants to
encourage different POVs
It is a news channel but has a major doc strand called Witness: a
daily 22 min. slot, which is commissions and acquisitions, and a
weekly 43 min. slot which is for now only acquisitions.

Aljazeera is an odd combination of the old and the new: it?s very much
built in the traditional BBC/ CNN mould: studio hosted, and with
traditional journalistic storytelling.

Cameron Hickey ? indie producer Pattern Films
Presented ?docsite? which is a free tool for creating websites for
filmmakers.

PW: Sheffield ?meet-market? was an example how half the process of
connecting filmmakers with CEs was conducted online.

Adnan hadzi introduces Djaromil, creator of dyne.bolic ? see dyne.org
Djaromil: you can also think about funding from the other side: to be
less dependent on expensive technology ? after all the less you need
the richer you are ont eh same budget. On dyne.org you can find free
open source tools for production and distribution of video.
Another great advantage of open source is in longevity: you are not
dependent on formats that are corporate owned and that can be
discontinued and be left without any software supporting it. Open
source will always be adapted so it gives you long term archiving
security.

Announcement from audience: filmmakers in Sheffield got together and
started a distribution platform for docs called docutube.com

Q from audience: what about using archive in films you want to post ?
do you have to own all the rights?
A: well we don?t really have an answer but in the end you can always
leave black holes where the archive goes with a description and then
put it in for broadcasts.

Emily from Fourdocs: on our site films are on a Creative Commons
licence, so they can be quoted freely.

Pat Afderheide: we also did a study on agreements about rights called
?the new deals?

Comment from audience: there ARE already models from the music
business, which has struggled with these issues a while ago. Also:
some of these supposed ?free platforms? actually claim copyrights on
posted material and may be extracting value in the long term so
they?re not as free as they look.

Q from audience: surely we can?t all finance our films striaght from
the public like Robert Greenwald?
Peter Broderick: there?s also models not so similar to Greenwald?s:
for example patrons, small loyal audiences could support sertain work
and certain filmmakers. But I believe that overall we are moving to an
era where filmmakers can be truly independent.

End on Peter Wintonick riff.

transmission.cc, 13-15 october 2006, london, limehouse December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news, tools , 1 comment so far

At the transmission festival one of the discussions was around FLOSS manual (see also http://www.flossmanuals.net) the importance of documenting multimedia tools. One of the projects dealing with manuals is http://converge.org.uk looking at video distribution of the x.264 codec (vodcasts). We decided to hold a follow up event at the Limehouse on April 27, 2007.

(quoted from http://transmission.cc/About)

 

Re-transmission was a three day gathering of video makers, programmers and web producers developing online video distribution as a tool for social justice and media democracy. The two events at the British Film Institute were made up of presentations and screenings, firstly exploring citizen video reporting on the Net, secondly discussing how to collaborate and share content on the net in the new era of Open Source and WebTV. For the full Re-transmission program see

http://retransmission.org.uk

 

for documentation of the event see:

http://www.archive.org/details/retransmission the film

 

http://wiki.transmission.cc/index.php/London%2C_October_2006 the wiki

http://www.dgen.net/blog/index.php/2006/04/01/online-video-10-years-in/

 

Metadata process update

 

Thanks to some funding from the alt-media-res project, we now have a draft metadata standard PDF prepared by JJ King and Jan Gerber:

 

This report and proposal is under consultation within Transmission-connected networks until Monday November 6th;

 

We are looking for substantive responses, feedback, proposals, in particular direct inputs from the other Transmission working groups – eg Translation/Subtitling, DoNoHarm, Aggregator R&D, Documentation….

 

I am posting summaries of responses in the wiki and hope that people with experience of this field of work can suggest practical ways forward to finalise and then begin to implement the standard.

 

After 6th November we will gather the working group together to review and improve the schema, spec out next steps etc. please add to and improve the metadata to do list

 

As part of this process, JJ King and I have drafted a proposal for implementation of this standard.

 

28th October 2006 (zoe)

 

http://wiki.transmission.cc/index.php/Responses_to_draft_schema

http://www.shiftspace.cc/j/meta/tx_report_0.2.pdf

http://www.clearerchannel.org/transwiki/index.php?title=Proposal_for_further_funding_for_implementation_of_RDF_schema

 

666 dyne II is out August 18, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : tools , add a comment

On June 6th, 2006 Dynebolic II was released.

“:: THIS IS RASTA SOFTWARE

Jah Rastafari Livity bless our Freedom! This is free software, share it for the good of yourself and your people, respect others and let them express, be free and let others be free. Live long and prosper in Peace!

But, no Peace without Justice. This software is about Resistance inna babylon world which tries to control more and more the way we communicate and we share informations and knowledge. This software is for all those who cannot afford to have the latest expensive hardware to speak out their words of consciousness and good will. This software has a full range of applications for production and not only fruition of information, it’s a full multimedia studio, you don’t need to buy anything to express your voice. Freedom and sharing of knowledge are solid principles for evolution and that’s where this software comes from.

Inna babylon, money is the main requirement to make a voice possible to be heard by others. Capitalist and fundamentalist governments all around the world rule with huge TV monopolies spreading their propaganda, silencing all criticism.”

- Release announce here ftp://ftp.dyne.org/dynebolic/latest/README